
Family
Law Legends are Often Falsehoods
By Gregg Herman
Wisconsin Law Journal
November 21, 2001
Family law has
its own "urban legends".
This article examines
several such legends and discusses their reality.
But first, a disclaimer:
The "reality" portions that follow are based solely upon the unscientific
experience of the author, with no empirical evidence other than nearly
25 years of practicing law.
Urban Legend:
Men Don't Get Custody. In the olden days, it was fairly routine
that the wife got the kids and the husband got visitation every other
weekend.
Besides the change
in the nomenclature from "visitation" to "placement," Wisconsin legislation
has attempted to remedy this conception by requiring courts to be gender-
neutral.
Reality:
Anecdotal evidence suggests that while men are far more likely to get
equal or even primary placement - but the law cannot change biology.
Courts, as they
should, consider the historical parenting patterns. As biology requires
women to bear children, they are also more likely to get primary placement
than men if the children are younger.
Where the children
are older, this preference fades to nonexistence.
Urban Legend:
Men Don't Get Maintenance. Traditionally, maintenance was
a payment that men made to women. Again, the law is supposed to be gender
neutral.
Reality:
For the same reasons as with custody, maintenance is still largely paid
from men to women. In fact, lawyers frequently refer to the opposite
as "reverse- maintenance cases".
The reason is not
gender bias by the courts, but mostly the income differential that exists
between men and women.
Further, maintenance
is frequently based on contributions to the earning capacity of the
other spouse and sacrifices for the family.
Since women are
more likely to have maternity leaves than men are to have paternity
leaves, it is more likely that the wife will have sacrificed earning
capacity for the family and, by doing so, contributed to the husband's
earning capacity than the other way around.
Another reason
is more subtle: Some men simply don't want maintenance, apparently finding
it to be demeaning.
Similarly, woman
seem to hate paying it even more than men do. As a result, it tends
to be negotiated away more often in the "reverse" cases than the "normal"
ones.
Urban Legend:
Men Don't Get Child Support. As with the first two urban
legends, this theory is promulgated largely by "divorced dads" groups
who see the legal system as gender-biased.
Reality:
As with the other gender-based legends, there is a certain amount of
truth to this theory. But again, the reason is more based on fact than
system bias.
First, as with
maintenance, there exists an income differential between the genders.
However, unlike maintenance, the income differential is only part of
the story. The court can award child support to the higher-income parent
if that parent has the children the greater amount of time.
But-and perhaps
more importantly - many men trade off child support for custody/placement.
It is not uncommon
to hear: "Let me have the kids. I don't need or want child support from
her."
Certainly, there
are many cases where men do not say this and in those cases, child support
should be - and usually is - paid from the female to the male.
Urban Legend:
Lawyers Conspire Against Their Clients. This is a common,
albeit paranoid, view held by certain clients.
The theory that
lawyers put on a show for their clients, then settle the cases in such
a manner to make sure they are paid, to the detriment of their clients.
Reality:
In reality, sometimes it would be better for clients if the lawyers
could "conspire" to reach a settlement, although certainly not after
needlessly running up fees.
In any event, this
legend is not very logical.
For one thing,
it is clients who approve settlements - lawyers only make recommendations.
Second, when lawyers needlessly fight with each other, they might put
on a good show for clients, but it is expensive and certainly not conducive
to reaching a "win- win" settlement. Most cases have a finite limit
as to how much the clients can pay.
The truth is that
lawyers, while frequently highly competitive with each other, are for
the most part ethical and professional.
Urban Legend:
Most People Hide Assets When Going Through a Divorce.
Reality:
Of all the urban legends discussed in this article, this is the most
difficult to test. For sure, divorce brings out the worst in people.
People who would never think of shoplifting an item from a store at
least think of - if not actually commit - fraud in their divorce. They
rationalize their behavior by assuming that the spouse is doing likewise.
A group of experienced
lawyers, including the author, once got together to discussed the question
of hidden assets. In cumulative, many years of divorce experience was
present. In all of that experience, only a very few cases could be identified
where hidden assets had ever been discovered.
Perhaps this is
because they are not easy to uncover. More likely, where there are "hidden"
assets, they tend to be rather minor, such as an item of jewelry.
For the large part,
however, it is this author's opinion that most people are inherently
honest. While they might be tempted to be dishonest, in the final analysis,
most people opt to do the right thing.
Urban Legend:
Courts Are a Good Place to Settle Disputes.
Reality:
While sometimes there is no alternative to litigation, this should always
be a last resort, not a first one.
Most judges simply
don't have the time to fully try all the issues involved in a family
law case. Further, many issues, such as placement schedules, do not
lend themselves well to an evidentiary structure.
Finally, people
can make compromises in settlement which can lead to a "win-win" result,
as they both give up the lesser important issues in exchange for the
more important ones.
Too often, courts
cannot discern between the more and lesser important issues and the
results of the trial end up being "lose-lose".
Back
to Herman Article Archive